Sapele Vs Mahogany

[westhemann]

I certainly hope you weren't referring to my post in your remark "making generalities about the intelligence levels of those who like to think in those terms"

I was not.I certainly also did not mean to set off that diatribe.Like I said in my post

I know I am bringing in several other recent topics in this post,but whatever.

But.by the way,you are just wrong about this

It's my opinion that differences in neck and body materials make VERY little -- I believe NONE that can be heard by the human ear

Wrong Wrong Wrong..sorry.Just wrong.I use the same electronics on almost all my guitars,so your fallacy is very apparent to me.Maybe it should say "to my ear"instead of "the human ear",because you might be tone deaf

Wrong

[avengers63]

It's my opinion that differences in neck and body materials make VERY little -- I believe NONE that can be heard by the human ear

Wrong Wrong Wrong..sorry.Just wrong.I use the same electronics on almost all my guitars,so your fallacy is very apparent to me.Maybe it should say "to my ear"instead of "the human ear"

This is one of those rare times when Wess & I are in total agreement. The wood in an electric make a huge difference. Like Wess, I've heard it for myself when I made two different instruments using the exact same hardware & electronics. Not just the same models, but the same items taken from one guitar and use don another. They sounded completely different.

You can maintain this as your opinion as long as you like, but you really are wrong.

[Johnny Foreigner]

Wow.

Didn't realize this is what I'd start with a simple question.

Anyway, on a slightly unrelated note, can anyone give me some tips on building a sustainer?

[Our Souls inc.]

Wow.

Didn't realize this is what I'd start with a simple question.

Anyway, on a slightly unrelated note, can anyone give me some tips on building a sustainer?

Well, you put 'Vs.' in the title, which is reminiscent of a title fight, and now you ask about the S word?!?

My advice : buy a Fernandes.

[FireFly]

Wow.

Didn't realize this is what I'd start with a simple question.

Anyway, on a slightly unrelated note, can anyone give me some tips on building a sustainer?

NO BRIAN! DON'T-

a-bir-bir-bird-bird-bird,bir-bir-bir-bird *trails off*

[Guest bartbrn]

I know I am bringing in several other recent topics in this post,but whatever.

Not my statement; not even QUOTED in my statement.

But.by the way,you are just wrong about this

And your scientific basis for this papal infallibility? Not your opinion, not your just-as-biased-as-mine ears, but easily-quantifiable signal differences, as described in the experiment I proposed?

I said: "It's my opinion that differences in neck and body materials make VERY little -- I believe NONE that can be heard by the human ear..."

Wrong Wrong Wrong..sorry.Just wrong.I use the same electronics on almost all my guitars,so your fallacy is very apparent to me.Maybe it should say "to my ear"instead of "the human ear",because you might be tone deaf

Wrong

Putting a "smiley" at the end of a statement telling someone they're categorically "Wrong Wrong Wrong..sorry. Just wrong" because you KNOW better, stating that I'm "tone-deaf" and implying thereby that YOU'RE endowed with perfectly microtonally calibrated, full-audio-spectrum hearing that can detect tonal differences audio-signal waveform analyzers cannot, is really the height of hubris. What you have is an opinion, just as what *I* have is an opinion. If you think your hearing is not only perfect, but perfectly objective, then this isn't a discussion of fact OR opinion; it's a discussion of bias.

As for "Avenger 63": "Wrong Wrong Wrong..sorry.Just wrong.I use the same electronics on almost all my guitars,so your fallacy is very apparent to me. Maybe it should say 'to my ear' instead of 'the human ear'" First, read what I said again. Unlike "westhemann" and you, I made it clear up front that what I was saying was my opinion, and repeated that stance throughout my post -- which was in no way a diatribe: it was a suggestion that there were far more objective and scientifically-quantifiable ways of measuring whether these woods make any difference, other than the perceived differences of those endowed with self-perceived perfectly objective, uncolored hearing. At least you actually slipped into some semblance of objectivity when you said "Maybe it should say 'to my ear' instead of 'the human ear'"

Backing up your self-held assertions of "fact" as absolutely and unequivocally faultless by telling me I'm "wrong wrong wrong. Just wrong" or Avenger63's equally unassailably conclusive "Wrong Wrong Wrong..sorry.Just wrong." hardly adds up to verifiable, repeatable scientific proof of your theories; for "theories" they are until scientifically proven, just as my OPINION is theory until scientifically proven. It has long been held in audiophile circles -- another circus of "opinion-as-indisputable-fact" -- that microtones, overtones, and just plain old tones that are outside the range of the best of human hearing* sonically modify, or "color" tones that ARE in the range of human hearing ( (usually accepted, as a result of rigorous SCIENTIFIC tests, as 20Hz to 20KHz, at the age of 18 or so). Scientific instrumentation can accurately plot waveforms, from infrasound to ultrasound, in ranges that easily exceed the "lows" that elephants hear (at the infrasound end of the spectrum) and the "highs" that bats hear (at the ultrasound end of the spectrum.) Humans, unless we're counting Clark Kent, hear within a scientifically-determinable audio frequency spectrum of about 20Hz to 20KHz AT BEST, just as we SEE within a scientifically-determinable VISUAL frequency spectrum. No credible evidence currently exists that tonal coloration WITHIN the range of even the best of human hearing occurs as a result of microtones or overtones that are outside the range of the best of human hearing. Neither have I seen any credible scientific evidence that woods used in a solid-body guitar create any DISCERNIBLE difference within the audio spectrum of human hearing. If you have verifiable and repeatable evidence to the contrary, by all means, let's see it. If you PERCEIVE there's a difference particular materials make to the sound of a solid-body, amplified guitar, then that difference is either provable in verifiable and repeatable experiment, or it is not. If it is not, then the difference is subjective, not OBjective, and what differences exist, exist somewhere in the pathway from your tympanic membrane to your brain, and then to your cognition. In other words, it's an opinion, pure and simple. Or let's go a little further and call it a "belief." "Wrong wrong wrong. Just wrong" or "Wrong Wrong Wrong..sorry.Just wrong." doesn't cut it as scientific proof (or correct usage of punctuation -- periods require following spaces). If you only said "wrong" three times, would I be LESS wrong? If you said it FIVE times, would I be more wrong? It's opinion, belief, or, to use the scientific term, a hypothesis, unless proven in verifiable (I get tired of saying this) and REPEATABLE. experiments. Another way to go would be a double blind experiment using your OWN guitar componentry on several bodies, PROVIDING that scale-length, action, intonation, plectrum activation, and guitar position, were exactly the same each time, and all volume and tone controls on the guitar are bypassed (coloration THERE, without a doubt), and the amp, amp settings, and room settings are exactly the same. THAT would be a very interesting experiment indeed, though it still wouldn't have the pure objectivity of instrument testing, where variables such as listener's mood, comfort, listening-space humidity and air pressure, and whether you're wearing underwear that's too tight don't make a difference in the results obtained. Perception is NOT objective. Perception is opinion.

If you want to declaim all week long and twice on Sunday on your PERCEPTION of the way different woods make a solid-body sound, I'm behind you 100%. If you categorically accuse me of being "wrong" for what I expressed as an opinion open to verifiable and repeatable (again and again) experiment, then this discussion is no discussion at all. You have your hypothesis. I have my hypothesis. Both or either hypotheses can be tested by one or more methods that cut out the totemic -- unscientific, subjective, belief-based -- variables to a very great degree. Such an experiment would prove one, or BOTH, of us right or wrong, in a manner much more empirical (based on, or verifiable by, observation rather than theory or pure logic) than just saying I'M "wrong wrong wrong. Just wrong" or "Wrong Wrong Wrong..sorry.Just wrong."

I've said all I have to say. If you think your opinions are the same thing as fact, there's nothing I can do about that. Body and/or neck material either makes a difference to sound, or it does not. I have no more to add to this discussion unless and until someone with more time, money, and pertinent knowledge of the required instrumentation than I have actually does the experiments and comes up with the data. Right? Right? Right?

Bart Bart Bart

*you can take a test to determine the limits of YOUR perfect, objective, and infallible auditory system at:

http://audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencychecklow.php

From this site

What is sound and frequency? Sound is a longitudinal mechanical wave of any frequency. Frequency is the number of cycles, or complete vibration experienced at each point per unit. Frequency is measured in hertz. The hertz, Hz, is the derived SI unit of frequency. The frequency of a sound wave determines its tone and pitch. The frequency range of a young person is about 20 to 20,000 hertz.

The human ear is capable of hearing many of the sounds produced in nature, but certainly not all. Some low frequencies like a heart beat of 1 or 2 Hz can not be heard, just like sonar sounds produced by dolphins which are too high. Any frequency that is below the human range is known as infrasound. It is so low that it may be detected by a creature with big ears, such as an Elephant. In fact, recent research indicates that elephants also communicate with infrasound. Ultrasound, on the other hand, is above the range of the human ear. Bats, whales, porpoises, and dolphins use ultrasound for navigation. Most bats can detect frequencies as high as 100,000 Hz!

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml

[avengers63]

It's my opinion that differences in neck and body materials make VERY little -- I believe NONE that can be heard by the human ear -- in the flat, unmusical plunk of a plucked string on an unplugged solid-body electric guitar, period.

If you categorically accuse me of being "wrong" for what I expressed as an opinion open to verifiable and repeatable (again and again) experiment, then this discussion is no discussion at all.

you dont need fancy science for this - just go to a guitar shop and play a few guitars. if you can play a few of the same type you quickly notice how different they can sound.

1) Pick a stance and go with it. Either you want to argue that the HUMAN EAR can't tell the difference, or you want to argue that electronic equpiment can't tell the difference.

2) The human ear CAN tell a difference. If you don't believe us, go do what Wez suggested. At minimum, address his comments.

3) I quoted Wess only because I agree with him. I made my own comments which are based on personal experience. If you want to reply to what I said, please do. But don't berate me for what someone else said.

4) IIRC, you commented on acoustic woods being a different story than electric. (If this wasn't you, then I apologize.) What makes you think that the thickness of the wood makes any difference to whether it effects the tone or not? The thickness will determine it's acoustic volume as a thicker piece vibrates less than a thick one, but it vibrates nontheless. If an acoustic's wood effects the tone, then likewise will an electric's wood.

And let's ne clear on something. We're not talking about pitch, but tone. An open A will still vibrate at 440Hz (IIRC) on every single guitar out there. It will sound different though because the wood will effect the WAY it vibrates.

If you PERCEIVE there's a difference particular materials make to the sound of a solid-body, amplified guitar, then that difference is either provable in verifiable and repeatable experiment, or it is not.

All this being said, if you can't hear it, then you can't hear it and that's that. I can't say that you do. Likewise, it's pretty foolish of you to suggest that we only THINK we hear it just because you don't.

[Prostheta]

Timbre in a complex system comprising widely varying organic components is far more subtle than "this" or "that". I agree with WezV about the variability even between "equally" identical models that roll off the same production line. They may be comparable, but differences can be discerned.

That's what we get for working with a non-homogeneous material like wood. We get character which takes experience to discern or ignorance to....ignore.

You can't quantify it in the lab. Wood is highly diversified even from trees grown in the same locale, or even in the same TREE! You can cut wood differently and its character within an instrument can change - perhaps subtly, but hey! There's another factor on the table!

Man, if these guitar things aren't reliant on the character of their materials then we might as well all go out and buy MIM Fenders since that's obviously the pinnacle. All these boutique luthiers must sideline in selling expensive cable to audiophiletards since obviously they're selling overblown shite that rich suckers just lap up ignorantly without thought or appreciation other than marketing.

I'm going to write my name in the snow with pee and call it art. Byeee.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Prostheta

[Johnny Foreigner]

I was following everyone's arguments right up to:

WAAHHHHHH WAAAAHHHHHHH WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH LISTEN TO ME!!!! WWWWAAAAAHHHHHH!

[borge]

2) The human ear CAN tell a difference. If you don't believe us, go do what Wez suggested. At minimum, address his comments.

playing guitars at a music shop will not give any useful data, humans are too subjective and prone to placebo.

And let's ne clear on something. We're not talking about pitch, but tone. An open A will still vibrate at 440Hz (IIRC) on every single guitar out there. It will sound different though because the wood will effect the WAY it vibrates.

No, the fundamental note (440) will vibrate identically, the amplitude of each harmonic will determine it's 'tone'. All easily measurable with test equipment to give useful, comparable data.

Prostheta-ANYTHING can be quantified in the lab, you just need a large enough sample size

I believe the woods used do make a difference but until I see some actual evidence I wont be spouting my easily biased, placebo ridden findings to anyone. from where I stand the sun appears to rotate around earth, I keep that to myself also...

If we all took what we, or others 'hear' as useful data then buying things like THIS should seem totally normal what effect tacking on 2m of high quality cable to the masses of the lowest possible cost (while meeting safety specs) cable leading to that point would have is beyond me...but if someone hears it, power to them.

[WezV]

playing guitars at a music shop will not give any useful data, humans are too subjective and prone to placebo.

its true - but its that same subjectivity we use when choosing a guitar and listening to music. I dont need scientific tests to tell me a piece of music sounds good and i dont need scientific tests to tell me if a guitar sounds good - its all about what pleases my imperfect human ears.

now i know that when i play a few guitars made the same way with the same materials my imperfect human ears will notice differences.

I am doing some tests at the moment with capacitors, i am not against the idea of studying these things but i wont call it science as its really not. It involves a switching system to allow me to see which i prefer with my imperfect human ears. So far i am actually finding very little difference, i will admit its less than i expected. its certainly tiny compared to the difference i hear with my imperfect human ears when switching between two otherwise identical guitars

what would scientific tests with frequency analysis add? i would sure be interested to read and discuss any findings, but i know i would still rely on those ears to make the important decisions for my builds.

[FireFly]

[edit]

I'll stop lol. But you guys do argue like children.

Different guitars with the same hardware do sound different. It's a fact of life. Go to any guitar shop and check it out sometime!

Edited February 14, 2011 by FireFly

[MiKro]

This is some funny ShEEEaaaaT!

[borge]

playing guitars at a music shop will not give any useful data, humans are too subjective and prone to placebo.

its true - but its that same subjectivity we use when choosing a guitar and listening to music. I dont need scientific tests to tell me a piece of music sounds good and i dont need scientific tests to tell me if a guitar sounds good - its all about what pleases my imperfect human ears.

Because music is art and therefore subjective, the frequency spectrum of different woods is not one is measurable the other is not.

You saying a guitar 'sounds good' means about as much as me saying the same guitar doesn't 'sound good', they're just opinions, nothing more, nothing less, It has no bearing on comparing the sound of "sapele vs mahogany" or any other woods.

now i know that when i play a few guitars made the same way with the same materials my imperfect human ears will notice differences.

And so will mine, but you and I expect differences whereas bartbrn doesn't, we both hear what we expect/want to hear..

I am doing some tests at the moment with capacitors, i am not against the idea of studying these things but i wont call it science as its really not. It involves a switching system to allow me to see which i prefer with my imperfect human ears. So far i am actually finding very little difference, i will admit its less than i expected. its certainly tiny compared to the difference i hear with my imperfect human ears when switching between two otherwise identical guitars

yet other claim to hear the difference between capacitors and pay a premium for PIO, or bumblebee caps... who's right? you or them?

You can see an interesting comparison of caps here:

http://freestompboxes.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12118&hilit=scientific

(sorry, think you may need to join the forum to access it, but it's well worth it, and a great forum to boot)

I would like to see the same frequency comparison software used for bartbrn's experiment, then we would have some actual facts to go off

[avengers63]

Eric Johnson claims to be able to tell the difference when his amp gets a new fuse. I certainly couldn't tell the difference, but who's to say that he can't? It's a medical fact that some people have more acute senses than others.

[borge]

yes, and it's a fact modern test equipment is more acute than ANY human ear

ie EJ's claim could be easily discredited by a simple test, not that that's required, anyone with electrical knowledge could tell you a slight variation in series resistance will cause a slight voltage change, but nothing compared to the normal variation due to power grid loading - ie the mains voltage variation throughout the day due to changing demand on the grid is many times larger than the voltage variation due to a possible slight difference in series resistance between two different fuses. I digress..

[hooglebug]

we all make guitars. we all (presumably) like the guitars we make. if someone else doesnt like the guitars we make does that make us like them less? no. and if it does, then you're silly. whether people agree with your ideas about wood and sound and tone and whatever else, it doesnt really matter.

one persons crap is anothers gold. there will ALWAYS be someone out there who disagrees with you, no matter how provable what you say is. just like there will always be someone who agrees with you even if you're spouting horrendous bum gravy.

at the end of the day, you believe what you believe, and if you dont want to change your mind then you're not going to whatever proof anyone provides you with.

if an alien landed tomorrow and announced to the world that it was him that created human life on earth and there is no god, and had absolute proof, do you think religious people would believe him? no.

now everyone play nice or you're all going to bed with red bums and no supper!!!

[WezV]

Because music is art and therefore subjective, the frequency spectrum of different woods is not one is measurable the other is not.

You saying a guitar 'sounds good' means about as much as me saying the same guitar doesn't 'sound good', they're just opinions, nothing more, nothing less, It has no bearing on comparing the sound of "sapele vs mahogany" or any other woods.

yes - subjective, glad we agree

the frequency spectrum of different woods is... well its different. this isnt a debate about who likes what sounds but whether there are different sounds from different woods

now i know that when i play a few guitars made the same way with the same materials my imperfect human ears will notice differences.

And so will mine, but you and I expect differences whereas bartbrn doesn't, we both hear what we expect/want to hear..

I am well aware of the arguments on psychoacoustics and suggestibility. I agree there is something to it, as well as the fact some people perceive a guitars tone to suddenly change - often it changes back if they play a different one for a while... our ears get used to certain sounds and it affects our perception of them.

Its all interesting stuff - worthy of discussion. but for me it is not enough to explain the night and day differences i frequently hear between two identical guitars. Its not enough to explain why i have built guitars with quality hardware, proven build techniques and tried a few sets of pickups in them only to find there inherent tone is completely unpleasant (and projects scrapped for that reason). I made changes in hardware, pickups and electronics fully expecting to hear a difference. A difference was there - but the unpleasant character shone through and it could only have been because of the construction (i had made guitars the same way before without this problem) or the wood

I am doing some tests at the moment with capacitors, i am not against the idea of studying these things but i wont call it science as its really not. It involves a switching system to allow me to see which i prefer with my imperfect human ears. So far i am actually finding very little difference, i will admit its less than i expected. its certainly tiny compared to the difference i hear with my imperfect human ears when switching between two otherwise identical guitars

yet other claim to hear the difference between capacitors and pay a premium for PIO, or bumblebee caps... who's right? you or them?

yes, i have paid a lot for many capacitors - i am not one looking to build guitars cheap and rarely skimp. I would swear when changing caps i heard massive differences. One guy was so adamant it made no difference i decide to do some tests since all it involved was adding a switch and two caps.... well my first problem was finding caps of the same value, otherwise the test would be pointless - every ceramic disc was well of the stated value, most well below. the spragues i have were consistently close so they became my baseline. I still have more caps to test but there was less difference than i expected when switching directly from one cap type to another - although I still think the sweep was a bit different. Fully on it made no difference (as expected), fully down it and very little difference (not as expected). in between setting did have differences, but not massive

will have a look at that website later - there is a good comparison of cap types on youtube but unfortunately the guy does not check the actual value of the cap - just uses ones with a certain stated value - with a stated tolerance of +/-20% !!!! well value of cap makes a very noticeble difference so that tells us nothing

what you can take from that is that i do actually listen to opposing viewpoints to my own - and if i have the time and resources (like with the simple cap test) i am quite happy to look into it and even change my own point of view... my cap point of view has moved a bit because of it.

I know everybody gets their knickers in a twist with threads like this - never understand why. I guess its the cognitive dissonance that comes from people questioning others viewpoints.

A bit of healthy debate (not 'your stupid if you think that' type posts) is good for us all!!!

[masterblastor]

It is physically impossible for two wood instruments to create the exact same "sound", unless they are played in a vacuum. There are more properties to sound than frequency. bartbrn's experiment is flawed since there is no constant. There is more than one way to skin a cat though. You can already mathematically prove that no two wooden solid body guitars will produce the same sound. Thanks Einstein! You just need to monitor brain activity in a controlled group of test subjects when exposed to different combinations of sound properties. Most of that data is already available. Thanks US Army! Anyway, yes humans are physically capable of distinguishing the difference in "sound" between two unamplified solid body guitars in some cases.

[WezV]

You can see an interesting comparison of caps here:

http://freestompboxes.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12118&hilit=scientific

lol - even with more advanced tonal analysis, they all still disagree. I like it

[Ripthorn]

I just found this thread, what a read! Now, I'm a physicist. I've done all the derive a new theory/simulate it/take measurements in a lab/re-evaluate/write a scientific publication thing more than once. I love working in the lab and all, but when it comes to guitars, there are just too many variables to try to ever irrefutably prove much of anything, especially since the end evaluation on performance is subjective. However, do I think generalizations or intuition are useless? No. I did concert hall/recording studio/stadium sound system design for a while and I can tell you that while every venue is different, I know what sound I expect to hear from a certain room. It will be different in the end, but very rarely will it be a dramatic difference that makes me go "OK, so what's going on here that I didn't notice?". In the end, having lots of experience on your own perceptions comes in very handy, especially when you are the end evaluator of a system (a guitar in this case). Anyway, if someone disagrees with your opinion, it's not the end of the world. All of science relies on either proving or disproving someone's idea of how they think things should work in the pursuit of "truth", whatever you wish that to mean.

As for mahogany and sapele, I like African mahogany, and I have found pieces lighter than sapele and vice versa. Decide the general idea of what you want, use your experience to go after it. If you don't have enough experience, go get some!

[WezV]

i have just remembered something relevant to this discussion, cant believe it only just occurred to me

I recently made two identical guitars in every respect except the body wood and colour! Guess which woods i used!

1 was sold to me by a reputable supplier as Sapele, the other was sold by a reputable supplier as Honduran mahogany, these descriptions matched my previous experience of what to expect from these two woods. In this case both were a similar weight (towards the heavier end of what i find acceptable), but its obviously hard to tell if they were a similar stiffness or not

I think i forgot as this was not done as science so i wont claim it as such, and unfortunately i dont have them to do tests. But as small builders & hobbyists we dont get to repeat our builds often and i can see why some people would suggest that made our tonal observations less valid (if you also assumed we didnt also play factory guitars on a regular basis)

yes, I do believe there was a noticeable tonal difference between thsoe two guitars, both acoustically and when plugged in and played clean/driven. Less so with high gain - it was easier to EQ out. (as a social scientist I am OK with my qualitative data from a small sample )

[Guest bartbrn]

1) Pick a stance and go with it. Either you want to argue that the HUMAN EAR can't tell the difference, or you want to argue that electronic equpiment can't tell the difference.

I picked a stance right from my first post: I believe human hearing -- there's a lot more to hearing than just "ears" -- is subjective, and signal waveform analyzers are not. Your auditory perceptions may seem very real to you, but perception is subjective, period.

2) The human ear CAN tell a difference. If you don't believe us, go do what Wez suggested. At minimum, address his comments.

What have you said here that's different from what you've said before? Saying "The human ear CAN tell a difference" no more makes that objectively true than saying "the earth is flat" makes the earth flat. I already addressed the comments about people going into a guitar shop, playing similar, but different, guitars with -- purportedly -- the same pickups, yadda, yadda, yadda, and claiming to be able to hear a difference. That's all wonderful stuff, but are you playing guitars that are different in NO OTHER WAY THAN WOOD? Is the scale the same? Is the string gauge and composition the same? Are the pickups, bridge, tailpiece, nut, tuners, action, and intonation the same? Is the signal from the pickup(s) going to the (same) amp as a straight-wire-with-set-gain, or through tone and volume controls on the guitar itself.

4) IIRC, you commented on acoustic woods being a different story than electric. (If this wasn't you, then I apologize.) What makes you think that the thickness of the wood makes any difference to whether it effects the tone or not? The thickness will determine it's acoustic volume as a thicker piece vibrates less than a thick one, but it vibrates nontheless. If an acoustic's wood effects the tone, then likewise will an electric's wood.

Are you serious? Acoustic guitars are made of thin tonewoods, assembled with glues and kerfing and patterned bracing, enclosing a substantial air cavity, the whole being COUPLED to the string's vibration by a bridge that is COUPLED to a soundboard that is thin enough that all the COUPLING from the string, through the bridge, to the soundboard, causes the soundboard to vibrate in harmony with the frequency-length of the string; the soundboard in turn vibrating the air inside the body cavity, and the walis and back of the body, which further add to the propogation of sound waves in the air cavity, so that the tone or wave frequency comes out the soundhole, all those couplings and vibrating surfaces and air masses amplifying and coloring the tone of the plucked string. Solid-body electric guitars operate on an entirely different principle: strings suspended between a nut, or a fret at one end, and a saddle (that we conveniently call a bridge, though it is rarely, if ever -- especially in floating-tremelo setups like a Floyd Rose -- "coupled" in any but the most ephemeral way to the guitar body, and I don't care if the "bridges" are TonePros or Chinese pot-metal "Tuna-O-Matic by Popeil," the bottom line is that whatever holds the string at one end and whatever holds it at the other end determines the effective vibrational length of the string, and thus it's vibration cycle, and that's it. The sound of a solid-body electric guitar -- you'll notice you don't see too many solid-body "acoustic" guitars -- is dependent entirely on a ferrous string vibrating in the magnetic field of a pickup, those vibrations creating an electrical current, or signal, in the wires wrapped around the pickup bobbin. Whether the pickup is a standard old polepiece, Lace sensor, or rail, the principle's exactly the same: a string vibrates a magnetic field, which excites a signal in the coils wrapped around the magnets, and the signal travels through some amount of circuitry and ends up at the output jack, ready to be carried by wire to an amplification device.

Chalk and cheese.

I have a Zager acoustic electric that uses an under-saddle K&K Pure Western Mini 3-piezo pickup. Does the amplified guitar sound like the guitar played purely acoustically? Of course not.

Then there's this: "What makes you think that the thickness of the wood makes any difference to whether it effects [sic] the tone or not? The thickness will determine it's [sic] acoustic volume as a thicker piece vibrates less than a thick one, but it vibrates nontheless [sic]." If what you're struggling to say is that a thicker piece of a given wood will vibrate strictly in terms of different volume, and not in different tonal frequency, then I suggest you consult a reliable resource on acoustical physics. There are things that I'll clearly identify as opinion, but there are other things that are simply wrong, wrong, wrong, and this is one of them. If you don't want to take my word for it, there are hundreds of thousands of reliable sites online, or your local university, that will tell you the same thing. Why do Zidjian and Paiste work so hard on thickness and have zealously-protected company-secret alloys to produce certain frequencies -- not auditory volume, which is effected primarily by hitting harder or softer -- but tonal frequencies? Ever take a sheet of fairly thin brass, suspended by a decoupling device, like a couple strings, and smack it with a mallet? Makes quite a noise (used, along with steel sheet, in pre-electronic-audio times, to produce thunder effects in live stage productions). Now take the same L x W piece of brass, only make it 2 inches thick -- about the thickness of a Telecaster. Suspend it with a (much stronger!) decoupling device, and hit THAT with a mallet. Sound the same to you? Perform the same two experiments in the same sound space with a narrow-field microphone connected to a waveform analyzer. Think you'll simply get a difference in volume? Care to place a wager on that?

I love this one:

And let's ne clear on something. [THAT would be a nice change! - BB] We're not talking about pitch, but tone. An open A will still vibrate at 440Hz (IIRC) on every single guitar out there. It will sound different though because the wood will effect the WAY it vibrates.

pitch 1 |pi ch |

noun

1 the quality of a sound governed by the rate of vibrations producing it; the degree of highness or lowness of a tone : a car engine seems to change pitch downward as the vehicle passes you.

• a standard degree of highness or lowness used in performance : "the guitars were strung and tuned to pitch"

tone |tōn|

noun

1 the overall quality of a musical or vocal sound : "the piano tone appears monochrome or lacking in warmth."

Note the difference in descriptive verbs: in "pitch," we read "the quality of a sound governed by the rate of vibrations" and "a standard degree of highness or lowness used in performance" -- in other words, measurable, QUANTIFIABLE, frequencies.

In "tone," we read "the overall quality of a musical or vocal sound : "the piano tone appears monochrome or lacking in warmth." In other words, QUALITATIVE, or subjective perceptions

If you PERCEIVE there's a difference particular materials make to the sound of a solid-body, amplified guitar, then that difference is either provable in verifiable and repeatable experiment, or it is not.

All this being said, if you can't hear it, then you can't hear it and that's that. I can't say that you do. Likewise, it's pretty foolish of you to suggest that we only THINK we hear it just because you don't.

I'm hardly so cocksure of anything (unlike you) that I would be so foolish as to maintain that I "only THINK we hear it just because you don't." I'm SURE you hear it, because hearing is one of THE most SUBJECTIVE and QUALITATIVE senses in the human 5-sense-arsenal. For example, there is much Asian music that sounds dissonant to "Western" ears, and vice-versa. There are many sounds we judge as "pleasant," and many that we judge as "unpleasant." The reasons for this are the subject of MANY treatises on how the human brain INTERPRETS certain sounds, or combinations of sounds. It is that culturally, genetically, environmentally, and who knows how many other "lys," our brains are wired to perceive sounds in different ways, that vary from culture to culture, era to era, region to region, and, ultimately, from person-to-person. Let me give a small illustration: I was born and raised in the Finger Lakes Region of Central New York State. It is an area often visited by orthoepists (aka "etymographists"), to determine the pronunciation of words for dictionaries, for example, because the way English is spoken there is considered by orthoepists to be the least-inflected American English (though those of us who've lived there know that even in Upstate New York, there are many varieties of local pronunciation: "Cherry Valley," along the Mohawk River, is most often pronounced by those who live there as "Cheery Valley," and the simple word "water" is a study all by itself, the primary bifurcation being "WAWt'r" and WAHt'r"). I lived for four years in Savannah, GA,-- whose "southern" inflection is quite different from, say, Atlanta's -- but the most startling difference my wife and I found was just outside Savannah, in the Vidalia/Claxton area, which is farm country (best onions in the world... in my opinion, of course). One day, my wife and i had ventured out way past the Savannah airport, east towards onion country. We stopped to eat at a "Huddle House" -- another Southern regionalism -- and were seated in a booth behind 4 onion farmers. Being new to the south, we we're fascinated by regional pronunciations and phrases, so we were trying to listen to these guys. Finally, my wife leaned over the table towards me and asked "Are they speaking English?" It was not discourtesy, or anything terribly wrong with our auditory systems: their inflection was SO profound that we could only pick out a few recognizable words here and there. The closest I can come to a reference with which many might be familiar is the character "Bubba" in "Forrest Gump," a great deal of which -- especially the opening and subsequent scenes with Forrest on the park bench waiting for the bus -- was shot in Savannah, where what we call "shrimp," the locals generally call "ssri-yumps" -- just like Bubba says it in the movie.

I have no doubt that your brain processes what you hear in such a way that you perceive the differences in the tonal qualities of certain woods that you describe; all I'm saying is that I would love to see an experiment of the sort I've outlined, carried out under the most rigorous standards, to see if audio waveform analyzers support your perception or not. Finally, your dismissive "it's pretty foolish of you to suggest that we only THINK we hear it just because you don't" is not only a poor attempt at insult, but ANOTHER complete missing of the point. Yes, I've heard the same components installed on different guitars, made of different woods, and they sound different. The problem is, such A/B unblind comparisons are tainted by the fact that:

1) I can see which guitars are different, and

2) In no case have such guitar "auditions" replicated the rigorous experimental standards I've outlined that are absolutely necessary to create as unbiased and uncolored an experimental method as can be achieved with instrumentation alone.

If you can't appreciate that fact, then you can't, and that's the end of the argument. Anything having to do with direct experience by the human senses is, ipso facto, subjective and qualitative. It's an indisputable fact of life. If you performed one of these A/B guitar tests in a guitar shop and had a friend with you who was equally adept and advanced a player as you, and whose judgment you respected, and you played two guitars with the same componentry and said to your friend "Man, can you hear the difference between this balsa body and that rock maple one?" and he said "No, I can't," would he be foolish, misinformed, wrong-headed, tone-deaf, or simply entertaining an opinion different from yours, which BECAUSE it was different, was consequently INFERIOR to yours? Or would such a disagreement -- from a player whose judgment you respect -- with your evaluation of the balsa vs rock maple bodies simply be impossible, because what you say is pure fact is pure fact, just because you say it? Trying to attach the quantitative labels of superior/ inferior, good/bad, or foolish/wise on *your* vs *your friend's* equally subjective and qualitative judgments is your prerogative, of course, but it doesn't make it unassailable fact.

PS: I agree with ripthorn that "generalizations or intuition" are certainly not useless... as long as you understand that they're your generalizations and your intuitions.

And WezV, I hope you'll agree with me that there are few "sciences" less quantifiable than "social sciences"...

Edited February 15, 2011 by bartbrn

[WezV]

And WezV, I hope you'll agree with me that there are few "sciences" less quantifiable than "social sciences"...

hence the smiley and the reference to qualitative 'data' But that is what i do, and i was making a joke out of it. I also make and modify guitars, and play as many as i can get my hands on. but i do it for guitars rather than science, so i am not about to make loads the same - just not why i am in the game

already addressed the comments about people going into a guitar shop, playing similar, but different, guitars with -- purportedly -- the same pickups, yadda, yadda, yadda, and claiming to be able to hear a difference. That's all wonderful stuff, but are you playing guitars that are different in NO OTHER WAY THAN WOOD? Is the scale the same? Is the string gauge and composition the same? Are the pickups, bridge, tailpiece, nut, tuners, action, and intonation the same? Is the signal from the pickup(s) going to the (same) amp as a straight-wire-with-set-gain, or through tone and volume controls on the guitar itself.

you may have missed my point on this then. I was talking about going into a large guitar shop and playing as many of the same type of guitar as you can. Lets say playing 10 standard fender tele's made from the same wood - or comparing the alder/ash varieties, if they are still the same in all other respects. I purposely referred to CNC production and machine wound pickups as it reduces the variability down to the wood and set-up. This is really what you should do when choosing any guitar, especially when paying a lot of money. I have done it quite a few times. It lets you pick the best of the bunch, its still my beleif that what makes one sound better will be down to the woods, whereas i accept that what makes one play better will be the set-up (although if we are changing string gauge slightly or action dramatically then yes, i also believe that will have tonal influences).

i mention trying this with fenders as they produce large numbers of the same guitar to fairly consistent standards. you will find more difference in gibsons, which i do believe is partly down to the woods, but they also have shockingly inconsistent QC. Newer ones are a bit better with the plek set-up, but that rarely seems to be a cureall.

Solid-body electric guitars operate on an entirely different principle: strings suspended between a nut, or a fret at one end, and a saddle (that we conveniently call a bridge, though it is rarely, if ever -- especially in floating-tremelo setups like a Floyd Rose -- "coupled" in any but the most ephemeral way to the guitar body, and I don't care if the "bridges" are TonePros or Chinese pot-metal "Tuna-O-Matic by Popeil," the bottom line is that whatever holds the string at one end and whatever holds it at the other end determines the effective vibrational length of the string, and thus it's vibration cycle,

sorry, are you saying that bridge/nut materials do or do not make a difference to tone. if you are saying they do not make a difference, thats fine (although i do completely disagree of course )

If you are saying they do make a difference i would have to question why you think those materials do, but wood doesnt.

I refer to my previous comments about the coupling that i believe exists in an electric guitar. i would say this coupling is clearly evident as you can feel the body vibrating. To me it seems that if the body is vibrating it must be the string that makes it vibrate, which is why i think there is a clear link between materials used to hold the string, and the way the string vibrates. I illustrated this before with the extreme example of coupling a string to a rubber or steel bar.

all I'm saying is that I would love to see an experiment of the sort I've outlined, carried out under the most rigorous standards, to see if audio waveform analyzers support your perception or not.

i would refer to ripthorns post about the difficulties in doing this.

It seems like you want to challenge commonly held and widespread ideas by telling us all to go and prove that we are wrong - most times when people want to do that they take on the mission themselves!

[WezV]

oh, and good point about floating trems - i do believe they cancel out some of the bodies influence as the coupling is less direct. I still think its there though and i still believe i can hear it enough to make me like some strats more than others (all else being equal of course)